Legally blind to the problem

Published 4:00 am, Friday, September 7, 2001

THE STATE Court of Appeals this week may have provided some finality to California's ban on affirmative action. It unanimously denied state agencies the tools necessary to identify and change racially skewed hiring patterns.

The court concluded that five state laws designed to help women and minorities learn about and compete for state jobs and contracts are invalid under Proposition 209, the 1996 anti-affirmative action measure. The laws are unconstitutional, the court said, because they set "goals and timetables" to help under-represented groups -- women and minorities -- find work.

It was the first major appellate court ruling on Proposition 209, which had already banned preferential hiring and recruiting by state agencies to achieve social parity. But the appellate court went even further, reversing a 1998 Superior Court decision that had allowed the state's Department of General Services, the lottery and the state treasurer to seek out "socially and economically disadvantaged" business owners to apply for -- but not necessarily get -- state contracts. In short, public employers can't even target outreach to disadvantaged groups to ensure wider, fairer competition for jobs.

The three-judge panel called the laws "pernicious . . . preferences," disregarding what led to such efforts in the first place -- namely that the bulk of state jobs and contracts routinely accrue to white males.

President Trump addresses nation after mass shooting at Florida SchoolWhite House

For example, white men -- 23.1 percent of the state's population -- hold 30. 4 percent of civil service jobs and were hired at a rate five times higher than black men last year, according to the State Personnel Board.